PhD selection via interviews

This is the season of PhD admissions.  A lot of Indian institutes are conducting interviews for their PhD as well as Integrated PhD programmes and I regularly meet exhausted colleagues at the lunch table discussing how many students they have met since morning. 

I have often wondered about the method of selecting candidates at Indian institutes.  As a new faculty member in 2010, I naively believed that we should also follow a system similar to North American universities: rate candidates  “in a wholesome manner” by the NET/NBHM scores, university exam scores, statement of purpose and reference letters.  As is now obvious to me, there are at least three problems with this:

1)   We all know how reliable university exam scores are. 

2)   The concept of writing an SOP confuses most students, (who don’t get adequate guidance from their college/university professors.)  At IISER Kolkata, we used to ask students to submit a write up about their mathematical interests.  Most students would end up writing this at the reception in a very shaky handwriting while waiting for their interview call.  The others, who had written the statement at home, simply copied passages from famous books of G.H. Hardy, Paul Halmos etc.

3)   Reference letters also did not usually help.  Sometimes, we got very weak students with glowing reference letters.  On a couple of occasions, we had some students who answered a lot of questions very well, but had poor letters!  In some cases, the college lecturers thought reference letters were character certificates!  [Note: writing reference letters is a bit of a hassle because even in the age of email, most of our institutes (including the elite ones) do not accept letters online and ask students to get letters from their referees in signed and sealed envelopes.]

 In the given circumstances, interview seems to be the most suitable option in choosing candidates.  The reference letters and the SOP that the student brings along hardly play any role in the selection process and even the mark sheets are sought purely for official purposes.

 I have the following concerns about the interview procedure: 

a)    A lot of students get nervous and anxious during interviews.  They need a little more time to open up and feel comfortable.  Come to think of it: a nervous student enters a room full of stern-looking faculty members [1](the number could be anything between 4 and 8!) who hand him a chalk and ask him to start solving questions on the board.  There’s a good chance that this student is writing on a board for the first time.  The student may have difficulty understanding what a member is asking or may not be able to answer a particular question.  This makes him or her more nervous and as the rest of panel (with the best of intentions) starts giving hints to this student, the student loses the ability to focus on the problem and think straight.  Often, a friendly and more experienced faculty member is able to make the student feel comfortable.  At IISER Kolkata, we once had a student who suddenly started panicking and sweating.  One of the interviewers made him relax for a bit and asked him about his favourite actor.  This student brightened up as soon as the discussion veered to Shah Rukh Khan.  Next thing we knew, he was back on his feet and performed very well in the rest of the interview.  So, this problem is mitigated to some extent by friendly faculty members who can question students without intimidating them.

b)   Because of the above reason, some students require more time than the others.  So, it is difficult to stick to the same time period for all students.  But, there is an administrative issue that interviewing a student for x minutes and another one for x+10 minutes could potentially lead to questioning from students (or their parents!) and even RTI enquiries!! 

c)    In order for an interview to be effective, the questions have to be well thought out.  Sometimes panel members can ask questions which may be too hard or inappropriate for the interview.  Answering such questions may not necessarily reflect the abilities one is looking for.  I once heard of an incident in which a faculty member asked the student to state and prove a highly nontrivial theorem.  The student was unable to do so.  When others discreetly told this member that this question might be too hard, he staged a walkout in front of a nonplussed student.  On one occasion, when I was in a panel and was asking a simple question about convergence of sequences, another interviewer openly snubbed me and insisted that we ask “real” questions (which in his worldview meant questions about solving differential equations!)  As you can imagine, I had to exercise extreme self-restraint to not retort [2].   Interviews cannot possibly be of any use if they turn into pedantic discussions (or wars) among faculty about what is important and what is not.

Perhaps these problems are not very serious and can be avoided if faculty with a serious interest in the quality of PhD students come together and design the interview procedure properly.  If a sufficient number of faculty members volunteer, the interview panel can be carefully chosen to reflect all the foundational areas that the student needs to be tested on. 

I recently heard of an interesting initiative at IISER Bhopal.  They organized a workshop for a couple of weeks in which students attended lectures on topics that were well represented in the Mathematics group there.  This workshop was followed by interviewing interested participants for the Integrated PhD programme.  This not only introduced the students to the research specialties of the group, but also enabled them to interact with the faculty and feel comfortable during the interview. This helped IISERB to attract some strong and interested students in this programme.

Questions for blogosphere: do you think fine tuning the interview procedure would be a good way of selecting students? Or do you have other ideas?

[1] Despite our best efforts, I think Mathematics faculty end up looking stern most of the time :)  
[2] Even though I don’t dispute the importance of solving differential equations.

Student desertion

Yesterday, I heard the most peculiar conversation between two people.  One of them, it seems, had either moved jobs or left his job or perhaps retired- it was not exactly clear.  The other person asked him what happened to his PhD students at his former institute.  This person shrugged and replied, “I don’t know.  They probably found someone else.”

His response made me wonder about the responsibilities of advisors towards students.  Should they not even attempt to make alternative arrangements for their PhD students if and when they move?  In a lot of cases that involve moving to a new institute, the student moves with the advisor.  This requires a considerable amount of paperwork if the student has a CSIR fellowship.  The new institute may have additional requirements for the PhD programme.  But, these things can be managed.

If it is not possible to move, the student works with someone else at the same institute.  In some cases, the new advisor also has similar research interests, or the PhD supervision is done jointly with the former advisor so that the student can continue to work on the same project.  But, I am also aware of many cases where students had to significantly change their research plans.  Nonetheless, usually, students are not left out in the cold and alternate arrangements are made with active involvement from the former advisor. 

One would hope the students of the person mentioned above were able to move to a new advisor and their programme was not disturbed too much.

But, his cavalier response made me wonder: If an advisor leaves, who is responsible for their PhD students? The advisor or the institute?

Chandigarh

I am visiting IISER Mohali to attend the annual Ramanujan Mathematical Society Meeting.  I am preparing for my talk tomorrow – so, this won’t be a very linear post.  Just some random thoughts:

1)   I have now visited four of the IISERs: Kolkata, Pune, Bhopal and Mohali.  All have their own advantages and special qualities, but in terms of accessibility, the institutes at Pune and Mohali easily score over the others. 

2)   It’s a different matter that traveling from Pune to Chandigarh isn’t all that easy.  There is only one flight from Delhi to Chandigarh, which leaves Delhi at 9.45 am.  So, one has to either travel to Mumbai to catch a flight, take an early morning 5.30 am flight from Pune to Delhi or take a later flight from Pune to Delhi and then travel from Delhi to Chandigarh by bus or train.  Interestingly, there is a direct flight from Bhopal to Chandigarh (which halts at Delhi).

3)   I have a special relation with Chandigarh.  It was my favourite childhood destination.  We lived in a small town called Dagshai in Himachal Pradesh and were lucky enough to get a house on the top of a hill, from where one could see vast expanses of Chandigarh.  Dagshai was where my father bought his first car (a Maruti 800) and we often drove to Chandigarh.  At that time, Sector 18 was the “happening” part of the city.   I had ice cream for the first time here.  This is a very short visit: but if I come back later for a longer visit, I would love to go there.  I wish I could also revisit the rock garden and the Pinjore gardens.

So much for now.

A bird's eye view or a frog's

Long ago, I was discussing some results from a paper with its author, a prolific and dynamic number theorist who has made outstanding contributions to the field at a relatively young age.  The conversation soon veered towards the nature of research and proving new theorems.  He had something very interesting to say:

"There are two kinds of mathematicians: some fly high like birds and can see an entire landscape.  They clearly see the big picture and know where to fly to.  On the other hand, some are like frogs: they cannot see the landscape and have to patiently make their way through the ground with limited vision.  I am the second kind."

I am sure this classification would hold for the sciences in general.

I have been struggling with a calculation for the last few days.  I haven't made much headway so far, but this conversation often comes to mind and prevents me from giving up.  There is hope for frogs!

Would you consider yourself a bird or a frog, or one who switches from one to the other?

Thoughts on parenting

Last Sunday, the world celebrated Mother's Day.  People shared pictures of their moms or their children on FB profiles.  My phone got overwhelmed by messages from online retail websites, enticing me to surprise my mother with gifts, air trips, spa appointments and what not.

I have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with this event.  I had not heard about it until the summer of 2000.  My mother was undergoing her chemotherapy treatment.  I had just finished exams and we were watching a movie together on a Sunday afternoon.  Suddenly, there was an advertisement on TV which announced that it was Mother's Day and the right opportunity to express your love for your mother.  We both continued to stare at the screen and wondered where this came from.  I could not bring myself to wish her because I had never heard of it before.  Sadly, that was my last opportunity to wish her.

For the last couple of days, I have been thinking about her and more generally, the parent child relationship. 

Parenting is a difficult job.  Every stage is a test of character.  It requires extreme amounts of self discipline to balance child care with one's professional and other commitments.  A lot of maturity goes into creating a nourishing atmosphere in which the child grows and the parents absorb all the difficulties.  When my mother's cancer was diagnosed earlier that year, her first concern was that the routines of her children should not be disrupted.  She even asked the doctor if the surgery can be postponed until after our exams.  The good doctor refused, but I still can't imagine how she was willing to put up with all the pain for 3 more months just so that the schedules of her children wouldn't be disturbed.  

Professor Sanghi's recent blog post describes yet another parenting challenge: that of placing the well being of the child above one's own ambitions/expectations.  His post mentions students in the IIT system who would dare not share their fears, anxieties, troubles with their parents for fear of adverse reaction.  It also mentions difficult situations for the institute when a counselor recommends that a student suffering from an illness, particularly depression needs family care and affection, but the parents would rather not have their ward back for fear of delayed graduation and what "people" would think.

These parents have done the best for their children, provided them the necessary education, resources and opportunities to enable them to get into IITs or other higher educational institutes. They care enough to frequently call faculty and keep track of their ward's academic progress: yet, at some point, the same parents are unable to give the ward the emotional support that s/he needs.  A parent of a student known to me once said, "my son must give me adequate returns on my investment in him." At what stage exactly did love turn into a financial investment?

Indeed, parenting is not for the fickle and feeble!

Nice folks

1) Those who put up links to all their papers on their webpages
2) Those who not only link to their papers but also write papers which can be read
3) Those who organize interesting workshops for beginning researchers and invite my students to them
4) Those who can keep boredom off meetings

and

5) Those who know everything about everything

Please add to the list.

Further addition to the list by Archana

6) Those who can discuss scientific ideas freely without the constant need of one-upmanship over others

7) Those who treat both seniors and junior with respect (6 is a specific corollary to this)

8) Those who cite other works, especially those by competitors, conscientiously.

9) Those who are ready to admit mistakes and/ or ignorance instead of using jargon and hand waving arguments to throw people off.

10) Those who are make genuine effort to be good teachers, and do not consider it as a distraction to research.

The wake up call

[Received an email yesterday and am producing it here with the writer's permission.]

Hi,

I went to some links from your weekend reading list and found a post by Xykademiqz very interesting.  It brought back some memories.

I was a PhD student in a computational field in the late 1990s.  My advisor's lab was in the process of getting new computers.  This left several huge desks unoccupied for a few weeks. One day, during an extended weekend, I dutifully went to the lab and started playing Solitaire.  I don’t know what came over me, but before I knew it, I had climbed on one of those inviting, big desks and dozed off.  Much to my shock, my advisor also decided to come in that day and I woke up to find her staring at me.  She was visibly upset, but didn’t say much and simply asked me about a manuscript that we were working on.  I quickly printed out a rough draft of about 25 pages.  The manuscript had a mistake in the first sentence itself  - she took a quick look and immediately tossed it into a recycle bin.  “I would like to see a version which was written while you were awake,” she said. 

Although I did feel guilty at being caught in a “compromised” position, I felt hurt that she threw away the whole manuscript due to one mistake. 

“How dare she insult me? I will make her regret this.”

“So what if I was caught napping. At least, I showed up on a holiday.”

"Maybe I was unwell. She didn't even bother asking."

I walked out burning in shame and anger and cursed her (in my mind) for not recognizing and appreciating the genius I was. I did not speak to her for the next few days, not that she was bothered. I resolved to work again on the manuscript and show her a perfect version the next time.  I also thought I would tell her how much her acerbic remarks had hurt me and would demand an apology. 

As I started going through the paper, I realized that it was full of serious mistakes: it did, in fact, look like the work of a half-asleep mind.  This was a wake-up call.  All these days, I had thought of myself as this super-intelligent and perfect person who would soon dazzle the world with great discoveries.  I had been careless in writing things up and did not bother to proof read, delegating that task to her!  But, she made it absolutely clear that she would not look at it unless I did a professional job with it.  I jumped into it with complete seriousness this time.  I wrote and rewrote all the new results in as clear a manner I could, rearranged the data from top to bottom, did a proper literature survey and placed the work in the right context. I went through the sections time and again to detect any error, technical or typographical. 

After a month, the paper was ready to be shown to her.  By then, I had given up all thoughts of demanding any apology.  I started feeling a bit obliged for the timely wake up call.  This time, her reaction to the paper was completely different.  She appreciated the work, praised it during the next lab meeting and suggested immediate submission with me as the single author.

It is my proudest moment, ever.